Polygamy and misogyny are alive and well in Canada

125 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/11/04/bc-bountiful-school-close... in B.C. polygamous community closes: Students now home-schooled[/url]

No reason was given for closure of the school, where according to testimony at the polygamy trial, boys were told to treat girls as "dangerous snakes."

My theory as to why they closed it: Girls and boys were starting to feel unnatural attractions for each other (don't even get me started about the same-sex attractions...), and the girls needed to be got out of there post haste so that they could be readied for "voluntary" marriage to whoever the woman-hating cult leader is right now. Maybe the boys too, I don't know.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

That is odd, though not surprising. It may actually be better, since from the sounds of that story the province is more directly involved with each student.

I remember reading this spring that the other school in that community (the one run by Winston Blackmore's faction)  was among the best in the province when it came to marks.

I wonder if this has to do with financial problems now that Jeffs is behind bars.

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I remember reading this spring that the other school in that community (the one run by Winston Blackmore's faction)  was among the best in the province when it came to marks.

Must have been the same survey that found Bountiful ranking first in happy marriages.

 

6079_Smith_W

I'm serious Unionist. The Blackmore school was rated among the best schools in the province for teaching kids the basics. As for the other one, again, it might actually be an improvement to have each family in direct contact with the outside world.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I'm serious Unionist. The Blackmore school was rated among the best schools in the province for teaching kids the basics.

I realize that you're serious. I prefer that kids do worse on the basics and not be indoctrinated in hateful misogynism. Just as I would happily abolish all funding to private schools even if it meant a 3.791% drop in pass rates. I don't think we should judge societies (viz. our own) by how well we teach kids the "basics" when that doesn't include (e.g.) human rights, social justice, international solidarity, science (e.g. evolution - how well did they do on that?), sex education... Where did Blackmore's school rank in those areas? Who decides what the "basics" are?

Some schools should be defunded. Others should be shut down.

6079_Smith_W

I expect the question of indoctrination in school is moot, considering the closed nature of their community. And when it comes to that, the public school I attended wasn't all that great when it came to some of those issues, including separation of church and state, evolution, and quality of education. My point was that they were actually getting an education beyond canning and pickling, and I don't see why it wouldn't have included evolution. By the province's reckoning it was among the best in the province, which I'd say is impressive for an isolated rural school in a closed community.

More importantly, I expect you agree that the closure of Jeff's FLDS school is a good thing.

Depending on how Blackmore's tax case comes down, you may get your wish regarding the other school. Ultimately it would be a good thing because it wouldn't stop at the school; it would break the hierarchical financial foundation of that entire community.

 

 

Michelle

I'd like to see the methodology behind whatever tests you're talking about, Smith. 

6079_Smith_W

I don't have that, but the source is the province's Foundation Skills Assessment test. I remembered reading about it in coverage of Blackmore's tax appeal this spring.

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/assessment/fsa/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/02/07/bc-bount...

 

 

Unionist

The Fraser Fucking Institute? Smith. Please.

Michelle

And who administers the tests?  The school, right?  I'm assuming they don't have a government official test every student in the province?

6079_Smith_W

Hey U, I agree with the Fraser Fucking Institute's position on legalizing marijuana, and the meat of this seems to be the province's own numbers. I recognize that they have their own spin, but I am not scared off by the name.

I don't want to drag this off topic; the only points I was trying to make was that whether the schools are closed or not is moot, because the indocrtination will still be there. I also wonder if the closure has to do with financial difficulty, and in fact, if the other school will wind up closed as well. And again, the fact that families will be in more direct contact with the province may be a good thing.

That its students'  test results are among the best in the province doesn't excuse the mysogynist and hierarchical structure of the community, but I do think it is an interesting contrast to what some might assume about the place.

 

6079_Smith_W

Perhaps you are right and it is fixed, Michelle. I am just going by that article. Again, it doesn't really have much bearing on the issue, so I'm prepared just let it drop.

I just found it interesting, since I have memories of a couple of rural schools which were certainly not among the best in our province. And of course, there is an assumption that to keep people indoctrinated one must keep them ignorant.

 

Unionist

As far as I'm concerned, the smarter these fanatic women-haters are, the worse it is. I hope they go serve some solid time behind bars, and a court order barring any contact with impressionable children forever.

Oh, and I've also heard they're very kind to animals.

6079_Smith_W

If the authorities can actually get a criminal charge to stick, yes. But they haven't been able to do that yet.

I think the real undoing of that community might come from the ruling in Blackmore's tax case, whenever that comes down (final arguments were in May). Up until now that school and everything else in that community has been financed through his company, which he is claiming as being commonly shared by the entire religious congregation.

If they rule against him I doubt it will be the end of that group, but it will certainly end the financial stranglehold he has over everything there.

 

 

 

Unionist

Missed this story - don't know if it's being discussed in another thread:

[url=http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Polygamy+charges+approved+against+Winst... charges approved against Winston Blackmore, three other leaders of religious sect in Bountiful, B.C.[/url]

 

6079_Smith_W

And this:

Funny, I was wondering what had happened in that tax case, and I remember looking last fall and finding nothing.

But here it is:

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=a84dbf9b-d4f2-423...

The polygamy charges are something (if a misguided something, in my opinion) but breaking the financial control over that community is more likely to prevent someone from stepping in and taking his place.

And he is being sued by the Mormon Church. Bizarre, and kind of hypocritical and gratuitous on their part but it is one more bit of trouble he has to deal with.

http://www.recorder.ca/2014/06/21/bc-polygamist-winston-blackmore-sued-b...

NorthReport

Busy day in the Kootenays

Accused Bountiful, B.C. polygamists appear in court

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/accused-bountiful-b...

Doug Woodard

I don't doubt that polygamy can have many drawbacks, some of which are discussed in

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/the_problem_with_...

One not mentioned is that it likely reduces contact between children and fathers, which researchers like Jaak Panksepp and others consider quite important.

However, I think that the problems are best attacked directly, under headings like preventing rape within marriage and underage marriage and forced consent, and enforcing rights to income and property, among others. Democratic financial decisions within a polygamous relationship would likely be a powerful constraint on patriarchy.

Some Islamic scriptures and traditions on consent, ability to support, and equality of treatment provide a base to build on also.

I find section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada frightening since it could be construed to outlaw anything that looks even vaguely like polygamy, e.g. large households, and explicitly says that sex doesn't have to be involved, just cohabitation. I know a polyamorist who considers herself under threat. Some intentional communities could be attacked with this sort of legislation if Harperism gets strong enough.

Some positive aspects of polygamy have been observed by the American academic Janet Bennion in some Mormon fundamentalist communities, which she mentions in

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/love-plus/Content?oid=2242199

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/28/how_polygamy_works/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erTwhTCAAss

(1 hour) 

as well as in Chapter 7 of

"Modern Polygamy in the United States: Historical, Cultural and Legal Issues" edited by Cordell Jacobson and Lara Burton 

which can be read on-line from googlebooks.

Also see Bennion's several books:

http://www.bookfinder.com

Unionist

Doug Woodard wrote:

However, I think that the problems are best attacked directly, under headings like preventing rape within marriage and underage marriage and forced consent, and enforcing rights to income and property, among others. Democratic financial decisions within a polygamous relationship would likely be a powerful constraint on patriarchy.

Which authority would be monitoring legalized harems to ensure that women and girls are treated "democratically" and are consenting to their situation?

Quote:
Some Islamic scriptures and traditions on consent, ability to support, and equality of treatment provide a base to build on also.

No thank you. The bible I grew up with says that a child who strikes its mother or father shall be put to death. I'm not interested in modern interpretations to build on this savage scripture. Nor do we have anything to learn from religion about how to whitewash households where a man has a team of women to serve his needs.

Quote:
I find section 293 of the Criminal Code of Canada frightening since it could be construed to outlaw anything that looks even vaguely like polygamy, e.g. large households, and explicitly says that sex doesn't have to be involved, just cohabitation. I know a polyamorist who considers herself under threat. Some intentional communities could be attacked with this sort of legislation if Harperism gets strong enough.

Harperists only prioritize abuse of women in foreign countries - and that, only as a prelude to invasion. In Canada, they give mothers money per child to stay at home, and will recriminalize abortion if given the chance. If you have one single example ever in history of section 293 being used in the way you fear, please provide us with a reference.

6079_Smith_W

For one thing, the fact that polygamous families which come here from other countries basically have to stay in hiding, and women wind up losing. And that families (specifically women) which fall outside this moralistic paradigm of two parents have no legal status.

(with the exception of one case in Ontario, in which a judge ruled for the recognition of three parents, recognizing that it made sense, and was for the good of the child)

I agree with Doug, actually, as well as polyamoury advocates who made submissions to the B.C. supreme court. As for use of the law, considering how long it has taken to do anything about Bountiful, it is not surprising there isn't an active campaign. A lot of anti-sex-toy laws and anti-blasphemy laws aren't applied. I'm not aware that Canada's sodomy laws were ever applied against straight people. That doesn't mean that this law is based any more on solid reasoning than them.

Are there crimes going on in Bountiful, and in other situations to do with this patriarchal imbalance? Absolutely. But this begs the question of what that crime is. If they can't manage to lay a charge for child abuse, kidnapping, coercion or some other thing where women and children are being forced against their will, falling back on meaningless morality laws isn't all that effective a substitute.

The mass-raid in the U.S. was conducted on a claim of child abuse, but even so, the disaster that resulted in tearing children from their parents, shows the difficulty in in applying these laws against actions which in principle should not be crimes at all.

Winston Blackmore has lost his tax case to set him self up as comptroller of a religious compound. That legal action is going to be far more effective in burying this abusive system than any archaic moral laws are. Remove the financial control, and you remove the biggest practical tool that is used to force people to obey.

 

 

 

Unionist

You can repeat the word "moralistic" all you want - but my opposition is based solely on the primacy of women's equality. So deal with that, not with straw people. Polygamy, in practice, everywhere that I know, is the subordination of women to men.

I wouldn't mind amending the law to say: "Ok, it's allowed, but the burden of proof, in any proceeding whatsoever, shall be on the Man-Husband to demonstrate that there is consent, absence of abuse, complete equality in finances, management, decision-making, etc." That should work, right?

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Polygamy, in practice, everywhere that I know, is the subordination of women to men.

In the first place, there many people - men and women - in polyamorous and open relationships who disagree with that. And considering that under common law one only has to live together to be considered equivalent to married, this law is senseless, and really just moralistic. What makes this wrong? The moral, religious-driven dimension that says women are less than men and made to serve. Begs the question of how one can fight an archaic moral code with an archaic moral taboo from the same religious tradition. The only thing driving it is the fact that they don't have the evidence to pursue a charge under any law that amounts to REAL forcing of someone against their will.

And the arguments for maintaining this in criminal law have focused on one thing - Bountiful and the FLDS - not the far greater cases in immigrant communities. But the result is still far more innocent people being shamed and forced to keep their status hidden because of that threat

To take your suggestion of a middle ground, I think a good compromise would be to keep polygamy unlawful, but not criminal. That would allow immigrant women in these unions to be out in the open and get help if they want it, with no risk of it being perpetuated in Canadian society.

Besides, B.C.'s court may have upheld it, I wonder seriously if we would have the same result at the Supreme Court of Canada, or that if men in these unions were criminals, the women would not be also.

It isn't a crime for an adult to take part in something that is against their best interest, and it is a sad fact that many women stay in abusive situations by their own choice. Using a ham handed law like this isn't going to much, if anything, to change that.

(edit)

I actually think your suggestion is a fair one, though I don't think criminal law works that way. Besides, erasing the relationship may criminalize, but it also runs the risk of erasing responsibility.

Pondering

It's amusing how enthusiastically men support polygamy considering it makes most of them redundant. The women who defend it do so on the basis of having others to share childcare, cooking and cleaning with.

I'm waiting for modern polygamous families to eject the "husband" as a superfluous burden.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

To take your suggestion of a middle ground, I think a good compromise would be to keep polygamy unlawful, but not criminal. That would allow immigrant women in these unions to be out in the open and get help if they want it, with no risk of it being perpetuated in Canadian society.

Makes sense to me.

 

Unionist

Pondering wrote:

I'm waiting for modern polygamous families to eject the "husband" as a superfluous burden.

Not just polygamous families...

6079_Smith_W

I don't support polygamy, Pondering. Did I say anywhere that I did?

But I don't support further demonizing women and children in those relationships by driving them underground and and keeping them invisible.

I also don't support using laws - laws which criminalize those women just as much as they do the men -  that are based on nothing but religious dogma because the justice system can't manage to lay a charge on legitimate crimes.

And I do support consideration for those who are in relationships that have nothing to do with coercion or patriarchy, but are still caught up by this.

And in case those arguments aren't enough, again - look at how well these laws worked down in the states in terrorizing families. All the seized children were returned to their families, four men were charged, and the system is still in place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/us/12raid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I don't support polygamy, Pondering. Did I say anywhere that I did?

But I don't support further demonizing women and children in those relationships by driving them underground and and keeping them invisible.

I also don't support using laws - laws which criminalize those women just as much as they do the men -  that are based on nothing but religious dogma because the justice system can't manage to lay a charge on legitimate crimes.

And I do support consideration for those who are in relationships that have nothing to do with coercion or patriarchy, but are still caught up by this.

And in case those arguments aren't enough, again - look at how well these laws worked down in the states in terrorizing families. All the seized children were returned to their families, four men were charged, and the system is still in place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/us/12raid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

This is not the US.

Many women don't report domestic abuse. That doesn't mean we should make it legal to bring it out into the open. I don't know the details of the Canadian criminal code that applies but I haven't heard of any unreasonable applications of it.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
For one thing, the fact that polygamous families which come here from other countries basically have to stay in hiding, and women wind up losing. And that families (specifically women) which fall outside this moralistic paradigm of two parents have no legal status.

Why do they have to hide, exactly?  As I understand it, if I want to live in my home with two women, both of whom are mothers of my children, I can.  Why should either of them have to pull an Anne Frank every time someone knocks on the door??

As far as the children go, what status have they lost?  Aren't they still my children and still entitled to whatever my children should be entitled to?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
For one thing, the fact that polygamous families which come here from other countries basically have to stay in hiding, and women wind up losing. And that families (specifically women) which fall outside this moralistic paradigm of two parents have no legal status.

Why do they have to hide, exactly?  As I understand it, if I want to live in my home with two women, both of whom are mothers of my children, I can.  Why should either of them have to pull an Anne Frank every time someone knocks on the door??

As far as the children go, what status have they lost?  Aren't they still my children and still entitled to whatever my children should be entitled to?

A man can't sponsor two wives.

6079_Smith_W

If there was a charge of domestic abuse there would be grounds to do something. But a choice of relationship is something different. 

As for loss of status, the Ontario case, in which one of the three parents was unable to do basic school and medical stuff is one practical example. Having to spend your life pretending to be a sister or aunt, and ineligible for spousal benefits, or feeling unable to complain because you are committing a crime by being in an illegal relationship, is a starker example. 

I agree in large part about the problems. I just see criminalizing it as counterproductive. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
A man can't sponsor two wives.

So then wife #2 can't emigrate to Canada.  But that has nothing to do with having to "hide" in Canada, which is what I was referring to.

Also, Canada's position on multiple wives is a matter of public record.  If you have multiple wives, why would you choose to emigrate to Canada when you know that you won't be able to sponsor them both?  It's not like Canada just sprung this on immigrants and now they're between a rock and a hard place.

Quote:
As for loss of status, the Ontario case, in which one of the three parents was unable to do basic school and medical stuff is one practical example.

Do you have more details?  If you're talking about "school" stuff in regard to children, can't a parent (for example) meet with their child's teacher (or bring their child to the doctor) regardless of whether or not they're formally married to the child's father?

Quote:
or feeling unable to complain because you are committing a crime by being in an illegal relationship

Except that in Canada they're basically not in an illegal relationship unless they want to insist that they are.  Or else tell me:  if I want to live under the same roof with two women, and have a sexual relationship with both, am I breaking a law, and which law?  Let's suppose I *don't* run around telling everyone that they're my "two wives" -- I'm just living with both of them.

 

6079_Smith_W

Here's the case.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-court-says-boy-can-have-da...

We have spoken about it a few times, which is why I just made reference to it this time. Obviously it concerns custody, not the relationship between the adults, but it is an example of how the law can be adapted to include things which might seem outrageous, but are in fact just practical.

As for the latter point, again, I am not sure that criminal law works that way. You are either committing a crime or not, especially since we are talking about marriage. But more importantly, there is certainly a stigma around those sorts of grey and not so grey zones, and about situations like that in the U.S. (and enough examples here too in other communities) where there is a raid, and people retreat back underground.

Do you think any woman who believes she might open the door to getting her children taken away is going to go to the authorities and complain about something? I seriously doubt it.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It's an interesting example, but it's not like we've never had step-parents.

Quote:
But more importantly, there is certainly a stigma around those sorts of grey and not so grey zones, and about situations like that in the U.S. (and enough examples here too in other communities) where there is a raid, and people retreat back underground.

Didn't those raids have an awful lot to do with allegations of underage brides and coercion?

If I'm living with my wife and my girlfriend, should we REALLY fear a government raid??  Do any of the three of us really have something clear and present to fear, here?

6079_Smith_W

No. I don't think most poly families are in danger of a raid. It is no concern at all for the two cases that involve friends of mine, though it could be in a situation that required next of kin. But they are one reason why it is absurd. And I suspect probably unconstitutional.

The cases in which it can actually cause harm are those which WERE raided - most recently with the end result of four charges, over 400 traumatized kids, all eventually returned to their families, and women who aren't likely to offer help in any future investigations.

And I don't see it as all that different for some traditional families who are legally married elsewhere, and keep it a secret here. The fear of going public with any family complaint is going to have the risk of uncovering that criminal status.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The fear of going public with any family complaint is going to have the risk of uncovering that criminal status.

I feel like I might be repeating myself here, but I'm just not seeing it. 

A woman has reasonable cause to want to call the police to her home, but she won't in case those police notice another woman of childbearing age living under the same roof?

6079_Smith_W

I could be assuming too much too, though I have been surprised by people I know who have had a bad experience shying away from any interaction with cops, CFS, or other authority figures simply because of the fact that it might draw unwanted attention.

lagatta

It also seems strange to base objections on "risk of uncovering a criminal status", i.e. that people (and I'm assuming we don't mean terrified refugees) lying on their immigration application forms. If you lie about something like that, it is always a risk.

6079_Smith_W

I'd turn that around. Does it not seem odd that polygamy is fairly common in some parts of the world (I have one friend whose family in Africa practices it) and yet here it is something that is completely invisible. I have heard and read stories of families covering that up, and it seems absurd that there isn't some truth to it. Families have made women play aunt or sister to cover up maternity even when there is no legal risk. That shame and fear isn't all that uncommon.

And it was a clearly stated problem in that article about the texas raid. People not wanting to speak to the authorities out of fear is a no-brainer. A close family member of mine went two years without medical coverage for her and her kids because she was illegally cut off, and she didn't want to make waves, even though there was no reason why she should have anything to fear.

Just found this. A court in Utah has struck down the ban on cohabitation, while keeping polygamy illegal.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56894145-78/utah-waddoups-brown-family...

Too bad it is the high-profile case of a priviliged cult that drives the law to change, and not the probably far greater incidence in those cases in immigrant communities. My guess is that it had more to do with them realizing that the big hammer doesn't work.

And this:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-to-table-bill...

Unionist

[url=http://vancouversun.com/news/crime/polygamist-parents-go-on-trial-for-ch... parents go on trial for child trafficking[/url]

6079_Smith_W

Good.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Evil religious nuts. Send in the drones to destroy their infrastructure and then lock up their children. This area has the historic skills needed to intern the children of these despicable people. It should be no problem throwing a camp together before the winter sets in too badly.

6079_Smith_W

Oh just sterilize and electroshock them all. That worked before, right?

lagatta

It is obvious that contemporary society must not repeat the callous way groups such as the Doukhobors were treated, but I don't think we can turn a blind eye to child abuse in extreme fundamentalist religious sects either. The ultra-fundamentalist Hassidic sect who moved first to southwestern Ontario, then to Guatamala - they were expelled by the elders of the community where they had settled as they had broken the most elementary laws of neighbourly behaviour and are now living in dire straits in Guatemala City - and this group, among others, believe in procreating early and often, but then their children are neglected and denied an education and the basic necessities for a healthy life.

Religious - and ethnic, in the case of the Doukhobors - tolerance is essential, but religion and tradition must not excuse child abuse.

6079_Smith_W

I agree, and that is kind of my point. It is good that at least one of these latest cases is about a clear crime involving children.

Whatever one thinks about the law against poly marriage, it may have been upheld in BC. but it is unclear whether it would survive at the Supreme Court, and it seems to be on a collision course with some other aspects of family law.

As for evil religions, that hasn't played a role in the law since the days when Jehovah's Witnesses were refused their right to vote because of their evil pacifism.

Until, of course they turned around and worked to change the law to prevent those abuses.

 

lagatta

Pacifism is about the only likable thing about the Witnesses. They can be very nasty people. Yes, of course the Duplessis repression of them was wrong, but I want nothing to do with them.

6079_Smith_W

You know, I could say something about nasty people I have met from pretty much every race, culture and religion.

And that there are a lot of reasons why sometimes people appear nasty from our perspective.

Instead, I'll relate something I heard last weekend which made me reconsider that kind of assumption. It was a talk from a Unitarian minister and refugee who had to leave his country because it was no longer safe for him.

Who helped him across the border? A minister from the Pentacostal faith, which in my experience I have always associated with closed-mindedness, twisting kids' minds, and showing up at our door to tell us we were going to hell.

We had Mormons in our family, you see - another group that, however vile some of their ideas, and however judgmental some of their people, also understand what it is to be lynched and burned out of your community just for your beliefs. 

All the more reason in a case like this to be clear on what is against the law, what is abuse and manipulation, and what is simply belief. And to not make assumptions about a whole group based on the actions of some people.

As for the Witnesses, it wasn't just Duplessis, it was the whole world. And it wasn't just their nasty nature, it was the fact that they presented an open challenge to government because they rejected it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses

(cut and paste link)

And you like our Charter? You can thank them.

Quote:

In order to obtain religious freedom the Jehovah's Witnesses popularized the idea of a Canadian Bill of Rights and established numerous libertarian precedents before Canada's highest courts (see Human rights).

On June 9, 1947, they presented a petition to Parliament for the enactment of a Bill of Rights with 625,510 signatures. John Diefenbaker became an advocate of the Canadian Bill of Rights and eventually introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights to Parliament during his tenure as Prime Minister.

The Canadian Bill of Rights was the precursor of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the Canadian constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses_in_Canada

 

 

 

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

The institution of the JWs is actually pretty cruel and unforgiving when it comes to non-members you have relationships with.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/05/28/new-jehovahs-wit...

They've also, as a group and as an institution, promoted homophobia and belittled mental health issues as a lack of self-control. So while individuals may be perfectly nice people on the face of things, they believe some very awful and destructive things if they are true to the faith.

Any philosophy or institution that demands you love it more than your children is inherently destructive, for all that it may have accomplished some good. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I live in BC and I know that if the children of Bountiful were taken into the child care system en masse would cause irreparable harm to many of them. The system is already stretched past the breaking point.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Would the system have room for just the female children of "marrying age"?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I live in BC and I know that if the children of Bountiful were taken into the child care system en masse would cause irreparable harm to many of them. The system is already stretched past the breaking point.

I think that's very probably true. Also, the culture shock from being removed from everyone and everything you've ever known is a huge trauma for a child.

Then again, I think being forcibly married to a man you've never met at the age of 12 is also traumatic.

I think we need to find a way for neither of these things to happen. I wish I had an answer for how to accomplish it.

Pages